Case 2303724/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Scott-Barnes v Amey Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303724/2019
- Decision date
- 10 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Scott-Barnes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant. No substantive findings on liability or remedy are stated in the judgment.
The judgment does not set out the individual complaints, any factual findings, legal reasoning, or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the proceedings following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant. The specific pleaded claims are not set out in the judgment text; classification follows the listing categories only. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses the proceedings following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant. The specific pleaded claims are not set out in the judgment text; classification follows the listing categories only. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the proceedings following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant. The specific pleaded claims are not set out in the judgment text; classification follows the listing categories only. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismisses the proceedings following withdrawal of the claim by the Claimant. The specific pleaded claims are not set out in the judgment text; classification follows the listing categories only. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.